A Response

I usually keep my blog away from anything too controversial, for several reasons. But once in a while something SO terrifically interesting comes up that I simply cannot resist. See what I found on a friend’s blog.

S said…Arrey dhoosh, at the end of the day…females are best suited for the kitchen and kids and…It’d so wierd otherwise! But then, I hail from a prehistoric village called Central Calcutta, so never mind.
R said…

Haha! If you mean what you say, you do hail from a prehistoric village, but it is sad to hear that the name of the village is Calcutta!
S said…Jabb baba, sad-er ki holo? And in all seriousness, I think women are good at certain things and men are in others. And I say that the pattern is ‘natural’ because it certainly seems to transcend geographical boundaries. Women suddenly becoming the bread-earner of the family, eeks, that’s almost as weird as gay marraiges
R said…

This is where you make the mistake buddy. The pattern is not ‘natural’ but ‘social’. Gender is a social construct and streotyping is its fallout. And nowhere did I say that women should become the sole bread-earners of the family. I only objected to the representation that working women are bad and housewives are good!

S said…Just to clarify, when I meant something transcending geographical boundaries, I meant to be including that remote aboriginal village in Australia. Surely ‘natural’ is a superset of ‘social’ in a certain sense…exceptions (Sati, Casteism et al) apart.

If I’m to be politically correct I should be prolly agree with you… but…if you’ll get be drunk when I’m actually speaking what I feel, I’ll tell you that the very concept of “working” women is at loggerheads with the very concept of the Indian society and what holds the whole structure up.But since I’m actually not drunk, soothsaying can wait and you can assume I said nothing.

Well now I don’t know how exactly to start reacting to this. I could just say ‘grow up, take a look around you” and dismiss it, but then somehow that doesn’t seem to do it.
I mean the assumption that seems to be made is that if something transcends geographical boundaries and is an acceptable thing in a remote aboriginal village (let me not even go toward asking for a substantiation for that), then it automatically becomes ‘natural’ (whatever that means). ‘Cause excuse me, are we saying Biology is God?
Also, who told you that aboriginal villages are not society, but rather representations of ‘nature’?
Also, there’s this problem of some things just not being clear. Example: “the very concept of “working” women is at loggerheads with the very concept of the Indian society and what holds the whole structure up.” I mean what does that mean? What is it that holds the structure up? And what is this ‘structure’ you are talking about?
Yes, the concept of “working” woman does seem to be at “loggerheads with the very concept of Indian society;” maybe that just tells you how patriarchal Indian society is, how patriarchal you are. Unless you are argueing that that’s a fine thing to be. In which God help you, and you are going very far indeed. And since you are NOT drunk, I suggest that you kinda review how you look at the world around you. Its sooo changing that’s it not even mentioning separately. (That is not to say that everything’s already perfect or anything.) As for the idea of a woman being the sole bread winner in a family eeking you out – well let me tell you, it has been happening for a while now…just not overtly that’s all. Calm down. And better adjust yourself to it. (I would even go so far as to say that you better try being less homophobic also…)